Classifying Adverse Events in the Dental Office.

BACKGROUND: Dentists strive to provide safe and effective oral healthcare. However, some patients may encounter an adverse event (AE) defined as "unnecessary harm due to dental treatment." In this research, we propose and evaluate two systems for categorizing the type and severity of AEs encountered at the dental office. METHODS: Several existing medical AE type and severity classification systems were reviewed and adapted for dentistry. Using data collected in previous work, two initial dental AE type and severity classification systems were developed. Eight independent reviewers performed focused chart reviews, and AEs identified were used to evaluate and modify these newly developed classifications. RESULTS: A total of 958 charts were independently reviewed. Among the reviewed charts, 118 prospective AEs were found and 101 (85.6%) were verified as AEs through a consensus process. At the end of the study, a final AE type classification comprising 12 categories, and an AE severity classification comprising 7 categories emerged. Pain and infection were the most common AE types representing 73% of the cases reviewed (56% and 17%, respectively) and 88% were found to cause temporary, moderate to severe harm to the patient. CONCLUSIONS: Adverse events found during the chart review process were successfully classified using the novel dental AE type and severity classifications. Understanding the type of AEs and their severity are important steps if we are to learn from and prevent patient harm in the dental office.

Quantifying Dental Office-Originating Adverse Events: The Dental Practice Study Methods.

BACKGROUND: Preventable medical errors in hospital settings are the third leading cause of deaths in the United States. However, less is known about harm that occurs in patients in outpatient settings, where the majority of care is delivered. We do not know the likelihood that a patient sitting in a dentist chair will experience harm. Additionally, we do not know if patients of certain race, age, sex, or socioeconomic status disproportionately experience iatrogenic harm. METHODS: We initiated the Dental Practice Study (DPS) with the aim of determining the frequency and types of adverse events (AEs) that occur in dentistry on the basis of retrospective chart audit. This article discusses the 6-month pilot phase of the DPS during which we explored the feasibility and efficiency of our multistaged review process to detect AEs. RESULTS: At sites 1, 2, and 3, respectively, 2 reviewers abstracted 21, 11, and 23 probable AEs, respectively, from the 100 patient charts audited per site. At site 2, a third reviewer audited the same 100 charts and found only 1 additional probable AE. Of the total 56 probable AEs (from 300 charts), the expert panel confirmed 9 AE cases. This equals 3 AEs per 100 patients per year. Patients who experienced an AE tended to be male and older and to have undergone more procedures within the study year. CONCLUSIONS: This article presents an overview of the DPS. It describes the methods used and summarizes the results of its pilot phase. To minimize threats to dental patient safety, a starting point is to understand their basic epidemiology, both in terms of their frequency and the extent to which they affect different populations.

Dental Providers' Perspectives on Diagnosis-Driven Dentistry: Strategies to Enhance Adoption of Dental Diagnostic Terminology.

The routine use of standardized diagnostic terminologies (DxTMs) in dentistry has long been the subject of academic debate. This paper discusses the strategies suggested by a group of dental stakeholders to enhance the uptake of DxTMs. Through unstructured interviewing at the 'Toward a Diagnosis-Driven Profession' National Conference held on 19 March 2016 in Los Angeles, CA, USA participants were asked how enthusiastic they were about implementing and consistently using DxTMs at their work. They also brainstormed on strategies to improve the widespread use of DxTMs. Their responses are summarized by recursive abstraction and presented in themes. Conference participants were very enthusiastic about using a DxTM in their place of work. Participants enumerated several strategies to make DxTMs more appealing including: the use of mandates, a value proposition for providers, communication and education, and integration with EHRs and existing systems. All groups across the dental healthcare delivery spectrum will need to work together for the success of the widespread and consistent use of DxTMs. Understanding the provider perspective is however the most critical step in achieving this goal, as they are the group who will ultimately be saddled with the critical task of ensuring DxTM use at the point of care.

Evaluating quality of dental care among patients with diabetes: Adaptation and testing of a dental quality measure in electronic health records.

BACKGROUND: Patients with diabetes are at increased risk of developing oral complications, and annual dental examinations are an endorsed preventive strategy. The authors evaluated the feasibility and validity of implementing an automated electronic health record (EHR)-based dental quality measure to determine whether patients with diabetes received such evaluations. METHODS: The authors selected a Dental Quality Alliance measure developed for claims data and adapted the specifications for EHRs. Automated queries identified patients with diabetes across 4 dental institutions, and the authors manually reviewed a subsample of charts to evaluate query performance. After assessing the initial EHR measure, the authors defined and tested a revised EHR measure to capture better the oral care received by patients with diabetes. RESULTS: In the initial and revised measures, the authors used EHR automated queries to identify 12,960 and 13,221 patients with diabetes, respectively, in the reporting year. Variations in the measure scores across sites were greater with the initial measure (range, 36.4-71.3%) than with the revised measure (range, 78.8-88.1%). The automated query performed well (93% or higher) for sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for both measures. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that an automated EHR-based query can be used successfully to measure the quality of oral health care delivered to patients with diabetes. The authors also found that using the rich data available in EHRs may help estimate the quality of care better than can relying on claims data. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Detailed clinical patient-level data in dental EHRs may be useful to dentists in evaluating the quality of dental care provided to patients with diabetes.

Adoption of dental innovations: The case of a standardized dental diagnostic terminology.

BACKGROUND: Standardized dental diagnostic terminologies (SDDxTs) were introduced decades ago. Their use has been on the rise, accompanying the adoption of electronic health records (EHRs). One of the most broadly used terminologies is the Dental Diagnostic System (DDS). Our aim was to assess the adoption of SDDxTs by US dental schools by using the Rogers diffusion of innovations framework, focusing on the DDS. METHODS: The authors electronically surveyed clinic deans in all US dental schools (n = 61) to determine use of an EHR and SDDxT, perceived barriers to adoption of an SDDxT, and the effect of implementing an SDDxT on clinical productivity. RESULTS: The response rate was 57%. Of the 35 responses, 91% reported using an EHR to document patient care, with 84% using axiUm; 41% used the DDS. Fifty-four percent of those who did not use an SDDxT had considered adopting the DDS, but 38% had not, citing barriers such as complexity and compatibility. CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of an SDDxT, particularly the DDS, is on the rise. Nevertheless, a large number of institutions are in the Rogers late majority and laggards categories with respect to adoption. Several factors may discourage adoption, including the inability to try out the terminology on a small scale, poor usability within the EHR, the fact that it would be a cultural shift in practice, and a perception of unclear benefits. However, the consolidation of the DDS and American Dental Association terminology efforts stands to encourage adoption. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: The successful adoption of dental innovation depends not only on the intrinsic merit of the innovation, as some useful innovations do not achieve widespread traction. As such, it is important for health care providers to understand how to disseminate their ideas in order to ensure traction and widespread adoption.

How dental team members describe adverse events.

BACKGROUND: Although some patients experience adverse events (AEs) resulting in harm caused by treatments in dentistry, few published reports have detailed how dental providers describe these events. Understanding how dental treatment professionals view AEs is essential to building a safer environment in dental practice. METHODS: The authors interviewed dental professionals and domain experts through focus groups and in-depth interviews and asked them to identify the types of AEs that may occur in dental settings. RESULTS: The initial interview and focus group findings yielded 1,514 items that included both causes and AEs. In total, 632 causes were coded into 1 of the 8 categories of the Eindhoven classification, and 882 AEs were coded into 12 categories of a newly developed dental AE classification. Interrater reliability was moderate among coders. The list was reanalyzed, and duplicate items were removed leaving a total of 747 unique AEs and 540 causes. The most frequently identified AE types were "aspiration and ingestion" at 14% (n = 142), "wrong-site, wrong-procedure, wrong-patient errors" at 13%, "hard-tissue damage" at 13%, and "soft-tissue damage" at 12%. CONCLUSIONS: Dental providers identified a large and diverse list of AEs. These events ranged from "death due to cardiac arrest" to "jaw fatigue from lengthy procedures." PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Identifying threats to patient safety is a key element of improving dental patient safety. An inventory of dental AEs underpins efforts to track, prevent, and mitigate these events.